Missile Defense Program Update 20 MAR 06 Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06) Lt Gen Trey Obering, USAF Director Missile Defense Agency
Policy Ballistic Missile Defense Policy And Mission The United States plans to begin deployment of a set of missile defense capabilities in 2004. These capabilities will serve as a starting point for fielding improved and expanded missile defense capabilities later. Missile defense cooperation will be a feature of U.S. relations with close, long-standing allies, and an important means to build new relationships with new friends like Russia. Mission White House Fact Sheet National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense, 20 MAY 03 Develop an integrated layered Ballistic Missile Defense System - To defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies and friends - From ballistic missiles of all ranges - Capable of engaging them in all phases of flight 2
Why Did We Deploy When We Did? 4 of 5 successful intercepts in tests of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System 1999-2002 proved technology Successful flight tests of the boosters operational configuration in 2003 Successful completion of integration and checkout tests of the radars, command, control and communications system Completion of a comprehensive, independent safety review 3
4 N. Korean Nuclear Advance Is Cited Washington Post April 29, 2005 NK s Taepodong Missiles Could Be Operational By 2015: LaPorte Korea Times March 11, 2005 Iran, Defiant, Insists It Plans To Restart Nuclear Program The New York Times Jan 10, 2006 Iran says it increased range, accuracy of its Shihab-3 missile The Associated Press August 9, 2005 Iran Tests Solid Fuel Motor for Missile By ALI AKBAR The Associated Press Jun 1, 2005 Today s Reality N. Korea Develops Longer- Range Scud Missile With Up to 1,000-km Range Kyodo World Service February 15, 2005 Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06)
Why Invest In Ballistic Missiles And Weapons Of Mass Destruction? Overcome a significant U.S. conventional weapon advantage - Such weapons offer a cost-effective way to offset U.S. military power and level the battlefield - The 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars showed that countries will use ballistic missiles against our forces Enhance capabilities to deter, blackmail or coerce the United States and its allies and friends - Threaten our foreign policy objectives by holding cities and high-value assets hostage - Deny access or coerce a withdrawal of U.S. and friendly forces engaged in a regional conflict Acquire new tools of terrorism - Would take terrorism into a new, more frightening dimension Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06) WMD Are Are the the Great Strategic Equalizer, And And the the Ballistic Missile Is Is the the Weapon of of Choice 5
Chavez announces intent to buy Chinese IRBMs November 8, 2009 Iran successfully tests long-range missile U.S., European Leaders Alarmed September 5, 2011 North Korea detonates nuclear weapon after long range missile test Warns U.S. not to interfere in unification June 20, 2008 Pakistan s Musharraf Overthrown! Army of Muhammad controls nuclear-tipped missiles Demands U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan March 25, 2007 Tomorrow s Possibilities Russia Admits Tactical Nuclear Missiles Are Missing Associated Press February 15, 2009 6
Non-Traditional Acquisition MDA has adopted a Capability-based Acquisition Strategy - Requirements are based on evolving threat uncertainty, not precise predictions - Incorporates an interactive, collaborative approach - Focus is on fielding early capability with military utility Spiral development calls for continuous upgrades - Short timeframes do not lock on a final grand design - Periodic continuation reviews with flexible contracts reduce incentives for unrealistic expectations Knowledge points allow decisions on whether or how program development advances - Critical risks demonstrated early Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1429 (14 FEB 06) 7
Critics of the Missile Defense Program There is not enough oversight of MDA The testing is not realistic you are cheating The cost of missile defense is not worth it This will lead to an arms race in the world Experts say the challenge is too great it will never work 8
The Experts There is no field where so much inventive seed has been sown with so little return as in the attempts of man to fly successfully through the air. Rear Admiral George Melville Chief Engineer in the U.S. Navy, 1901 The atomic bomb was the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives. Admiral of the Fleet, William Daniel Leahy One of President Truman s most senior military advisors, 1945 [Man will never reach the moon] regardless of all future scientific advances. Dr. Lee DeForest Inventor of the electron tube, 1957 9
The Experts The concept of missile defense is quite seductive. (But) it s destabilizing, it s incredibly expensive, and it doesn t work. Philip Coyle Senior Advisor to the President of the Center for Defense Information, 23 FEB 06 The national missile defense interceptor cannot tell the difference between warheads and the simplest of balloon decoys. This means that the national missile defense system can simply not work. Theodore Postol MIT Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy 10
Integrated Ballistic Missile Defense System Sensors Boost Defense Segment Space Tracking And Surveillance System Sea-Based Radars Forward-Based Radar Midcourse Defense Segment Early Warning Radar Defense Support Program Terminal Defense Segment Multiple Kill Vehicles Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Kinetic Energy Interceptor Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Airborne Laser Command, Control, Battle Management & Communications USSTRATCOM Ground-Based Midcourse Defense USPACOM Terminal High Altitude Area Defense USNORTHCOM NMCC 11
An Integrated Approach To Ballistic Missile Defense Combining different sensors with different weapons expands detection and engagement capabilities DSP In-Flight Updates Ground-Based Interceptor Land-Based Radar Track Track Sea-Based Radar C2BMC Track Interceptor Site Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06) 12
Missile Defense Program Strategy Field an initial increment of missile defense capability - Initial protection of entire U.S. from North Korea, partial protection of the U.S. from Middle East threat - Protection of deployed forces, allies and friends with terminal defenses Field next increment (2006-2007) of missile defense capability - Complete protection of U.S. from Middle East - Expand coverage to allies and friends - Increase countermeasure resistance, and increase capability against shorter-range threats Follow on increments begin to increase robustness of interceptor inventory and sensors - Addresses unconventional attacks Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06) 13
Current System Configuration Block 2006 Ground-Based Interceptors (9) Ground-Based Fire Control Suite Fylingdales, UK Radar Cobra Dane Radar Ground-Based Interceptors (2) U.S. Strategic Command Aegis Surveillance & Track Destroyers (11) U.S. Pacific Command Sea-Based X-Band Radar Beale Radar U.S. Northern Command Fire Control Suite National Capital Region Forward-Based X-Band Radar- Transportable Aegis Engagement Cruisers (2) Engagement Destroyers Standard Missile-3 Interceptors (9) Patriot PAC-3 Batteries 14
Ft. Greely, Alaska Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1395 (30 JAN 06) 15
Vandenberg Air Force Base Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1405 (7 FEB 06) 16
Aegis BMD Long-Range Surveillance & Track Engagement 17
Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) SBX In Pearl Harbor SBX Under Way SBX Interior 18
Forward Based X-Band Radar Transportable (FBX-T) 19
Ballistic Missile Defense System December 2006 DSP Communication Satellite Communication Satellite DSP Fort Greely Ground-Based Interceptors Ground-Based Fire Control Suite Forward-Based Radar Cobra Dane Aegis Engagement Cruisers and Destroyers Standard Missile-3 Interceptors Aegis Surveillance & Tracking Destroyers U.S. Pacific Command Sea-Based Radar Beale Radar Ground-Based Interceptors U.S. Strategic Command U.S. Northern Command Fire Control Suite National Capital Region Fylingdales Radar Aegis Engagement Cruisers Aegis Surveillance & Tracking Destroyers PATRIOT PAC-3 Batteries 20
Test Accomplishments Long-Range Engagement - Successful Ground-Based Interceptor and kill vehicle performance test December 2005 - Successful demonstration of Cobra Dane (September 2005) and Beale (February 2006) radars intercept solution generated and processed by fire control system - Acquired and tracked ICBMs with Forward-Based X-Band Radar - Achieved Sea-Based X-Band Radar high-power radiation now in Hawaii enroute to Alaska Medium- and Short-Range Engagement - Successful Aegis intercept test November 2005 - Successful Terminal High Altitude Area Defense flight test November 2005 - Airborne Laser achieved successful full duration lase at operational power level December 2005 - Successful Japanese Standard Missile-3 nosecone proof-of-principal flight March 2006 21
FTM 04-1 Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1429 (14 FEB 06) 22
LRALT 26 SEP 05 23
THAAD Interceptor 22 NOV 05 Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1382 (17 JAN 06) 24
THAAD 22 NOV 05 Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1438 (16 FEB 06) 25
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense 13 DEC 05 26
Sea-Based X-Band Radar 27
Planned Flight Testing In 2006 Ground-based midcourse defense (long-range) - Demonstrate operationally configured radar (Beale) - Demonstrate interceptor and verify kill vehicle functions June/July - Conduct intercept test September / October - Conduct intercept test November / December Sea-based midcourse defense (short- to medium-range) - Japanese interceptor nosecone proof-of-principle flight (non-intercept) - Conduct intercept test against separating warhead June - Conduct intercept of a low exoatmospheric ballistic missile November Ground-based terminal defense (Short- to medium- range) - Demonstrate Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptor Mar-May - Two intercept tests against unitary (April-June) and separating targets (June-August) - Demonstrate low-altitude flight of interceptor September-November 28
Emerging Block 2006 Capabilities Defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles from North Korea - Up to 22 Ground-Based Interceptors in Alaska and California - Initial radar discrimination software for complex threats Defense against emerging threats - Second forward-based radar March 2007, ready for forward-based functions December - Space-Based Infrared System (Highly Elliptical Orbit) integration December 2007 - Space Tracking and Surveillance System demonstration satellites December 2007 - Total of 3 cruisers / 7 destroyers with 26 Standard Missile-3 interceptors - Improved battle management and initial global integrated fire control 29
Uncertainties And Challenges Rogue Nations: Keep ahead of long-range threat inventories while significantly increasing capability against shorter- threats Threat Maturation: Keep pace with increasing threat complexity Unconventional Ballistic Missile Attacks: Negate attempts to circumvent the Ballistic Missile Defense System Emerging Threats: Maintain development program foundation to address capabilities - With last year s $5 billion reduction, we developed a program strategy to balance these risks - This year s cuts of an additional $1.8 billion and fact-of-life changes caused further program adjustments for 2007 budget 30
Approach To FY 2007 President s Budget Maintain fielding and sustainment commitments Continue focus on mission assurance and quality Balance development to to address current and future challenges Fact of life changes have driven cost growth - Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle producibility challenges - Extended qualification testing for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense - Sea-based interceptor deployment stretched to accept technical upgrades Program adjustments: Development - Defer second Airborne Laser aircraft two years - Delay fielding of Kinetic Energy Interceptor until after 2008 flight test - Accommodate low risk technology and 2-color seeker in Multiple Kill Vehicle Program adjustments: Fielding - Focus on forward-deploying precision tracking and discrimination sensors - Increase funding to achieve 24/7 operations and support - 4 additional Ground-Based Interceptors thru Infrastructure Reduction 31
President s Budget FY07 TY $ s in Millions President's Budget 2007 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total FY06-11 Development 6,256 6,867 6,785 7,084 7,452 8,228 42,672 Fielding 939 1,743 2,062 2,093 1,880 1,015 9,732 Sustainment 500 708 688 779 789 630 4,094 Total BMDS 7,695 9,318 9,536 9,956 10,121 9,873 56,498 32
Emerging Block 2008 Capabilities Increased capability against North Korea and Iran - Up to 38 Ground-Based Interceptors - Thule radar (Greenland) available Initial defense against asymmetric and improved capability against regional threats - 3 Aegis cruisers and 15 Aegis destroyers with 57 Standard Missile-3 interceptors - 24 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors Greater mobility to address surprise threats - Up to 3 forward-based radars - Surveillance and tracking satellites (2) 33
Block 2010 Capabilities Increased capability against North Korea and Iran - Up to 50 Ground-Based Interceptors (Includes 10 in Europe) - Thule radar (Greenland) fully integrated Improved defense against asymmetric and improved capability against regional threats - 3 Aegis cruisers and 15 Aegis destroyers with 81 Standard Missile-3 interceptors - 48 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors Greater mobility to address surprise threats - Up to 4 forward-based radars available 34
International Activity Highlights Framework Partners Japan: FBX-T Siting, 21" Missile Technology, Information Sharing UK: Fylingdales UEWR, CM & Lethality Technology, Target Development, Third Site Candidate Australia: OTH Radar, M&S Partner, Future Joint Analysis Denmark: Thule UEWR Italy: FW MOU In Final Stages, MEADS Partner, Architecture Analysis Study Continuing Activity Israel: AWS Deployed, ASIP Program Germany: MEADS Partner, Laser Cross-Link Technology Netherlands: PAC-3, Trilateral Frigate Program With Aegis Turkey: Bilateral Sensor Architecture Study, Possible FBX-T 2 Siting Spain: U.S.-Spain MD Working Group Established, Aegis LRS&T NATO: ALTBMD Program Office, Feasibility Study, Interoperability Ukraine: CM And Target Cooperation, MD Workshops Held June And October 2005 Russia: TMDEX Program France: Exploring Interest New Relations / Emphasis Poland: Interim MOA Under Discussion, Third Site Candidate Czech Republic: Third Site Candidate India: PLANX In January 2006, SIMEX 2007 Taiwan: Workshops; Analysis 35
Results Of Mission Readiness Task Force Implemented findings into test program - Identified mission director for test events to provide endto-end continuity - Defined and executed common sequence of test reviews / panels across all BMDS test activities - Created TE Director for Test Assurance under RTO - Stood up Test Configuration Control Board (TCCB) promoting total system perspective - Integrated MDA Safety, Quality, and Mission Assurance in test task forces - Strengthened Mission Assurance and Systems Engineering processes across the program 36
Issues For Industry We will place special emphasis through audits, award fee plans and program reviews on: - Mission Assurance - Systems Engineering - Test Readiness Certification - Supply Chain Management Integration challenges the way we have done business - Data sharing, proprietary technologies and procedures - We will adjust our acquisition strategies to better facilitate integration of BMDS Capability-based acquisition challenges the traditional relationship between government and industry - Government doesn t have all the answers - International cooperation introduces new variables Implementing a knowledge-based funding approach which will match our spiral strategy - Contracts must be adaptive, flexible, and not necessarily long-term Approved for Public Release 05-MDA-1208 (10 NOV 05) 37
A World With Missile Defense Evolving the Ballistic Missile Defense system over the next decade - More mobility - More layers - More redundancy - More inventory - Participation of more allies and friends How will this impact our world? How will U.S. defense goals (dissuade, assure, deter, defend), the Global War on Terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy be affected? 38
Persistent Surveillance Global command, control, battle management, communications More sea-based and landbased sensors Surveillance and track satellites Next-generation spacebased infrared satellites Improved response times worldwide Expanded areas of engagement Better information on missile events Worldwide integration The United States Can Better Defend Its Interests and More Readily Meet Its Defense Commitments to to Allies and Friends. 39
More Mobile Assets 18 sea-based engagement ships Transportable land-based engagement capabilities (THAAD, MEADS) Transportable and mobile radars Introduction of boost phase defenses Flexibility to address emerging threats Improved crisis response More agile battle field operations New defense layers against all missile ranges Quick Reaction Times Improve Confidence of of Leaders Shows of of Force to to Deter Adversaries Possible 40
Building Defense Robustness 50 Ground-Based Interceptors at multiple sites Multiple Kill Vehicles/ counter-countermeasures Additional CONUS radars ICBM-capable sea-based interceptors Redundant sensor coverage Bolstered interceptor inventories Growing confidence in missile defense system Terminal long-range defenses supplement midcourse and boost defenses Improved homeland defense Greater Freedom of of Action to to Prosecute the Global War On Terror, and Improved Defense of of U.S. Populations From Off-shore Launches 41
The Future Ballistic Missile Defense System How much defense is enough? - Our air, naval, and ground forces continue to evolve to meet national security requirements - Will the ballistic missile threat ever be stable enough so that we can stop growing or changing the system? Do we need to go to space with interceptors? - A space layer will significantly enhance system performance and responsiveness at what point do we explore this hypothesis? - Will terrestrial-based BMD assets be sufficient to deal with increasingly sophisticated and shifting threats? 42
Take Aways The missile threat is real and proliferating Major progress towards meeting Presidential direction Capabilities are in the warfighters arsenal while concurrently supporting further development efforts - Adding persistence improves awareness - Adding mobility increases options - Adding inventory enhances robustness - Enhancing C2BMC extends the battlespace Carefully balancing program priorities to accommodate fiscal controls, but fielding plans and development programs are being affected International partners play an increasingly important role in missile defense fielding and development activities 43
44
Ballistic Missile Defense System Limited Defensive Operations (March 2006) DSP Communication Satellite Fort Greely Ground-Based Interceptors Ground-Based Fire Control Suite Aegis Surveillance &Tracking Destroyers Aegis Engagement Cruisers Standard Missile-3 Interceptors Cobra Dane U.S. Pacific Command Ground-Based Interceptors U.S. Strategic Command U.S. Northern Command Fire Control Suite National Capital Region PATRIOT PAC-3 Batteries 45
Agenda Perspective BMDS Update MRTF Results Expectations for Industry Future of BMDS 46
Mission and Direction Develop an integrated layered Ballistic Missile Defense System - To defend the United States, its deployed forces, friends, and allies - From ballistic missiles of all ranges - Capable of engaging them in all phases of flight Presidential Security Policy Directive 23 (May 2001) - Begin initial fielding in 2004 continue to improve over time - No final fixed architecture evolve as needed - International cooperation a key element National Missile Defense Act of 1999 - Deploy capabilities when technologically possible Approved for Public Release 06-MDA-1460 (27 FEB 06) 47